Talk:Syrian Social Nationalist Party/Archive 1

SSNP Is Arabist
There is much which appears to be wrong with the article.

Antun Saddeh was not anti arab nor did he believe that the Arab Conquest had done damage to the greater syrian nation.

Article III of the SSNP charter states.

The aim of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party is the creation of a Syrian Social Nationalist renaissance which will fulfill its declared principles and return the Syrian nation to vitality and strength; the organization of a movement seeking the complete independence of the Syrian nation and the vindication of its sovereignty; the establishment of a new order to protect its interest and raise its standard of living; and the endeavor to form an Arab front.

Syria is one of the Arab nations and indeed is the nation qualified to lead the Arab world as the Syrian Social Nationalist Party proves conclusively. It is obvious that a nation with no internal cohesiveness to insure its unity and progress cannot help revive other nations and lead them along the path of progress and success. Syrian nationalism is the only genuine practical way, the first prerequisite for the awakening of the Syrian nation and its ability to work for the Arab Cause.

Those who believe that the Syrian Social Nationalist Party seeks Syria's withdrawal from the Arab World, because they do not distinguish between Syrian national awakening and the Pan-Arab cause, are grossly mistaken.

We shall never relinquish our position in the Arab World, nor our mission to the Arab World. We want first and foremost to be strong in order to accomplish our mission more adequately. Syria must forge ahead in its national revival so that it can fulfill its great mission.

http://www.ssnp.com/new/ssnp/en/ssnp.htm#III Here is the whole thing.

70.128.227.112 18:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)TheLibyan


 * For the record, the cute material was:


 * Saadeh believed that Syria's greatness had been tarnished through a series of invasions, especially the invasion of Arab Muslims shortly after the founding of Islam. Saadeh in his writings often dismissed the Arab influence on Syria as being "of the East". To him, Syria was a "Western" nation, and its people Syrians, never Arabs.


 * I'm not sure who wrote this passage (although I believe I copy-edited it), but the source appears to be . I have no idea how seriously to take that source. It is clearly Lebanese nationalist, so would not be well disposed toward the SSNP. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that the SSNP nowadays is trying rather hard to pretend that it has always held its current positions, including its current positive view of Arabism. In fact that's not the case at all.


 * As for cedarland.org, this particular material doesn't appear on it, though something similar does. Mostly their stuff on political parties seems reasonably accurate and balanced, but I don't know enough about the topic to give a definitive judgement on that, and it's not exactly ideal source material. Somebody somewhere must have a book about Saadeh... Palmiro | Talk 14:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"Official" site
http://www.alqawmi.com/ was recently substituted for http://www.ssnp.net/ as an "official" site. I suspect they should both be linked; I don't read Arabic, so I don't know their respective statuses. Can someone please sort this out? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * i read a bit of arabic, and after a quick check they both seem official enough (although i didn't find exact ownership of the sites). probably just a new page, but of course it could competing branches or something. i dunno. why not have both links, both pages are big? Arre 06:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I also noticed this change and had a quick look at them both but coudn't tell what was going on. I also think they should both be there, at least until we can work out what exactly the situation is. If people are determined to remove one of them and say in big bold letters that the other is the genuine official site, that certainly suggests some sort of rivalry, perhaps between different factions. Palmiro | Talk 15:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Ghastly mess
Could someone who understands these things better than me please try and sort out the mess caused by the dispersal of the intro, table of contents and text at random between various pictures and templates? Please?? Palmiro | Talk 15:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Degree of territorial ambition
The lead paragraph says that the party "advocates the establishment of a Greater Syrian national state, including present Syria, Lebanon, Cilicia, Israel, the Palestinian territories, Cyprus, Jordan, Kuwait and Iraq." A map in the article shows even greater territory, including Sinai. The statement in the lead is cited to Irwin, who says only that "The charismatic Sa'ada put forward quasi-fascistic arguments for the future destiny of a Greater Syria (so great that it was to include Palestine, Lebanon, Cyprus and even Iraq, which was to be redesignated Eastern Syria)." Lebanon and Jordan are clearly implicit in Irwin's description, and Kuwait pretty much so (as "part" of Iraq), but Cilicia and Sinai are not. Do we have separate citation for those? - Jmabel | Talk 22:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Picture on this page tends to suggest that this may be entirely correct, but I do not know how official that site is, and do not read Arabic so I am not confident of the significance of the map. - Jmabel | Talk 22:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Just calling by - I'm not back! I'm not sure about Sinai, but where does Cilicia come into it? The map doesn't seem to show any Turkish territory that wasn't part of Syria at least initially in 1920 (you can check this against any historical map of the French mandate, but that's what it looks like to me). I never checked the Irwin citation, but I have seen all sorts of SSNP maps in various publications and as far as I recall they all looked like that - but that's just going on memory. I think, also from memory, the ssnp.info site is an amateur supporter's site. I don't have time to check any of this at the moment. User:Arre might be able to help. Palmiro
 * Just noticed a citation for this on Antun Saadeh. Palmiro

http://www.ssnp.com/new/about.htm - It doesn't get any clearer than that, folks. Joffeloff 17:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So I'll remove Cilicia and cite this. - Jmabel | Talk 15:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Fascist? (II)
Discussed here. --Filius Rosadis 23:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have asked you a question there. Palmiro | Talk 00:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Questionable recent edits
- Jmabel | Talk 06:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 900,000 members in Syria??? The article used to say 90,000.
 * "Its popular support in Lebanon is now rather limited," which I think is true, was replaced by the quite contrasting "Its popular support in Lebanon remains untill this day."
 * Added "Bachir Gemayel was mainly killed because of his close ties with the Israeli government and his hatred towards non-Christian Lebanese." This may even be true, but it looks to me like an uncited opinion as to why something occurred.
 * I've reverted these changes. The first two are incorrect and unsourced (hint to editors: your changes are more likely to stick if you can provide a reliable source) to back them up, and that article bears reading). The third is one point of view, and not an entirely invalid one by any means, but it is indeed "an uncited opinion as to why something occurred". Let's leave such conclusions to the historians (i.e., once more, Reliable sources). Palmiro | Talk 22:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong references
"References" include the following point:


 * Irwin, Robert, "An Arab Surrealist". The Nation, January 3, 2005, 23–24, 37–38. There is an online version, but only the first two paragraphs are shown to non-subscribers.

But the article "An Arab Surrealist" seems to deal entirely with contemporary Syrian poet Adonis, with no mention of or clear link to the party this Wiki entry is about. There's a similar problem with reference #1: it points to SSNP's webpage; so why is "Irwin, p. 24" mentioned? --Filius Rosadis 16:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Irwin is referenced for the following passage in that article: "In Damascus he became involved with Antun Sa'ada and his Syrian National Party. This party put Syria and its legends and history before pan-Arabism or Islamism. The charismatic Sa'ada put forward quasi-fascistic arguments for the future destiny of a Greater Syria (so great that it was to include Palestine, Lebanon, Cyprus and even Iraq, which was to be redesignated Eastern Syria). After a failed attempt at a coup in Lebanon, Sa'ada was executed in 1949." - Jmabel | Talk 23:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ssnpflag.gif
Image:Ssnpflag.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

does ssnp look like snp?
now listen guys i really have nothing against ssnp it's just when i made search for the Syrian national party your name came up i wanted you to remember that by doing this you are violating the terms of wikipedia even though one of you is administrator i want you to remember that wikipedia is not the right place to advertise your party or to twist the history by claiming things do not belong to you Syrian national party is historical fact you cannot claim it to ssnp remember that the one who put the president shukri alqwatli in jail is the same one who hand your leader sa'adeh to the Lebanese authority to hang him is this how you pay back the only ones that been nice to you???? maybe you can do it in wikipedia but you cannot do it on the ground Syrian national party is not the Syrian socialist national party and it will never be

Ta7seen 19:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Fascism
I note that someone keeps removing all references to fascist influences early on, despite these having been well cited for. I am registering my dissent here; I hope someone will take this up and follow through; but I am simply removing this from my watchlist, because I frankly don't care enough about this topic to keep fighting over this and I am heartily sick of trying to collaborate on an article with people who show no intellectual honesty. - Jmabel | Talk 07:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Example? &mdash; Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 15:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

1949
An uncited, anonymous edit removed "after the cancellation of legislative elections in Lebanon in which he had hoped for electoral success, the party attempted a coup d'état, which failed", replacing it with "Lebanese authorities incited the phalangists to attack the offices of the SSNP newspaper when Antun Saadeh was in it's offices, the gouvernment then used this attack to start a massive crackdown on the SSNP and it's leader". I'm pretty sure the old version was correct, so I have restored it. I'd appreciate citation for either. - Jmabel | Talk 18:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The second story is true, i used citation from the a documantary on the LBC channel, witch is close to the Phalanges. I have another citation from a book published by the SSNP, but it's in arabic, and didnt know if i can use it or not. Nonetheless what i wrote is the most neutral narrative i could come up with. Cause even the LBC documantary said that reinstating the license to the Phalanges and the pursuit of the SSNP members was unjustified--Darko3d (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

logo
Is there any reliable source on the origin of the logo? It looks suspiciously like typical 1930s/40s fascist symbolism (a stylized swastika or sonnenrad), but obviously a better source than speculation would be nice. --Delirium 05:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Saadeh commisioned some students in the American university in beirut to come up with a logo that can unite both the Muslim Crescent and Christian cross symbolizing the two major components of the Syrian society. The logo was chosen out of diffrent submission, because it resembles symbols found in acient Syrian artifacts, i have some photos of the artifacts and some citations. I'll add them to the article was i scan the images--Darko3d (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

genocide for all non-muslim?
Who the hell put that in? This article is a mess frankly and it is full of wrong facts. How can a party founded by a Christian advocate for genocide of all non-muslim. I hate the SSNP and hence refuse to edit this article (for honesty purposes) but this article is full of wrong facts and uses very controversial sources that have no academic credibility (e.g. Pipes). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.184.157 (talk) 10:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a flat out lie and someone needs to fix it quickly. The SSNP is a Christian party. If anything, Jews would have no place in their new empire. They don't care for Muslims all that much. Whoever wrote that is full of it and they probably know it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.160.16 (talk) 04:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To the people who keep re-adding the damned thing as if it was sourced from the ssnp.com party's about page. It's not there, so why do you place it right in front of that reference, you have to be careful not to add content in places where it can confused as belonging to some random source that happens to be there. Don't re-add it without a damned good source supporting it. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

another example of bad use of language
" The SSNP emblem and flag features a red hurricane (zawba'a), modeled after the Nazi swastika.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Because it uses the three colors red, white, and black, some[who?] associate it with the Nazi flag and compare it to fascist-inspired movements such as the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging. The SSNP claims to unknowing outsiders that their emblem is a mere combination of the crescent and the cross. "

1 - no need to say unknowing outsiders (that is irrelevant and a subjective value judgement). I can see the political agenda. I can be reading the SSNP site and not be an unknowing outsider. Also why not state the public stance of the party on the origin of its own symbols rather than start with an opinion. This sentence ends with the SSNP own claims as the criticism rather than the source. That is in my opinion a wrong way to write on politics.

2 - I think it is against neutrality to favor an opinion of a controversial writer (Pipes) over the publicly stated position of the political party. If anything the article should start with stating how the party publicizes its position and then can have a section on criticism or opinions about its history. For example: I am sure I can find you 100 sources showing that Zionism can be easily compared to fascist and nazi ideas as that was done many times in academic or political journals. However we will still write the article on zionism based on the views of the party then we could offer a section for criticism or subordinate it to party's own perception of itself (e.g. the party was founded based on x and y principle (ref from party public sources). However person T traces its origins to z).

3- This particle is still hopeless. I frankly think the party is fascist and can support my opinion by broad comparisons to fascism however that does not make it authoritative nor would I use it to say that it defines the party. I read Pipes and he also only offers opinion based on comparisons and does not source his opinions and hence can probably be listed as an opinion but not given precedence over the party's own public stance. The question is why should this article gives undue emphasis to the views of people like Pipes if no one can find an example of these ideas in SSNP public material. It is totally possible that the party attracts all kind of racist assholes but that does not mean the party is racist. It is also possible that the party has hidden agenda but that should be sourced too if someone can find any internal secret documents. Until then no one can judge a party based on the views of someone who obviously dislikes the party only. For example the democratic party in the south in the late 19th century attracted KKK members and many other racists, does that mean we call the party racist? Again a political party (due to the fact that people will disagree about them all the time) in my opinion should be sourced to its own references and dissenting opinion can be offered a section called criticism. However it is unfair to use the criticism as the basis of the article and offer the SSNP position as just propaganda. That is unfair and probably politically motivated.

4- to end the pipes controversy... why don't the people who keep adding the Pipes' references use the actual references that Pipes uses to support opinions. Otherwise if no such source exists then Pipes article are opinions and I don't see why should they be listed as sources for a factual encyclopedia over the public stance of the party. That kind of writing belongs in a history journal not in an encyclopedia. I also want to point out that Pipes views did not go uncontested in those journals and his book has a large number of critics in academia.


 * 1- agree with "unknowing outsiders" being innecesary, being POV, introducing an opinion,etc. I took it out. *sigh* yet another thing that I missed when I reverted back a lot of stuff.


 * 2- In Zionism, stuff like the origin of the movement is not sourced to the party itself, but to books written by historians, like it's supposed to be. For example, in the lead "the modern movement was mainly founded by secular Jews, beginning largely as a response by European Jewry to antisemitism across Europe.[4] It is a branch of the broader phenomenon of modern nationalism.[5]" it's from two historian books. See WP:SELFPUB for self-published sources like statements from parties about their own origin.


 * 3- See Historicit's reply at Talk:Syrian_Social_Nationalist_Party


 * 4- Why the heck should we do that? Have you noticed that there are other 6 sources on the article saying that it's based on the Nazi party and another 4 saying that the flag is based on the swastika? Are those other sources also based only on Daniel Pipes opinions? On what are you basing your assertion that a book published by Oxford University Press is based on opinions and not on actual references? And the one published by Harvard University Press is also based on opinions only? And I added another one from Princeton University Press by Nikki Keddie, who appears to be a knowledgeable source, and another one from Matthias Küntzel. This other book also tells the swastika origin(page 45) and gives two sources that I can't interpret(footnote 180 in page 155, it's a footnote to page 45), written by some Götz Nordbruch guy, who has published a few papers in antisemitism and islamism as seems to be cited somewhat on other papers. I'm not going to keep adding sources indefinitely until they go out of the page, you have presented exactly zero sources supporting your claims versus the ones on the article, and wikipedia is based on verifiable reliable sources and not on the opinions of wikipedians. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 2- what i was saying about Zionism as an example is that there are lots of history books that compare zionism to fascism. Hence there will be no shortage of opinion or references to also poison the page over there if a number of politically minded polemics decided to contribute. Frankly in my opinion there cannot be an objective opinion about political parties. All what we can do is offer an account and the source of the account but the phrasing has to be careful. The phrasing in this SSNP is messy. That is all what I am saying.
 * 4- After reviewing your points.. I agree that the Nikki Kedie book is a good reference. I have a couple of criticisms about the other sources that I will add below in a separate section. Also I did not make any claims to support anything. I offered a suggestion. If anything I don't like the SSNP. I also never edited this topic nor do I want to do so.

Pipes is NOT a reliable source
Daniel Pipes is an extremist ideologue. References from his work should not be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.78.91 (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As Slrubenstein points out above, this would contravene Wikipedia's WP:NPOV and WP:RS policies. Besides, the other reliable sources cited in this article corroborate his statement about the SSNP. Histopher Critchens (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)



See if you can find sources that are not secondary and are from 'neutral' observers for making teh assertions regarding Nazi modeling (ie, a sourced quote from Saadeh or reference to SSNP publications. I doubt you can find any.  But, if you do ...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.78.91 (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course Daniel Pipes is a reliable source. A man with political views, certainly, but a reliable source.  Of course, citations to him should be accompanied by sources form other reliable people and publications, as the assertions of facist roots for the SSNP are.  There are no historians without political views. Not even Herodotus.  Reliability is about using historians who check the reliability of their sources.  I reiterate that all responsible historians outside of Syria agree on the facist inspiration and connnection of the SSNP.Historicist (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Pipes is a legitimate source on some subjects, but critical remarks he makes about Arab nationalist political parties should probably be taken with a great deal of skepticism. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 02:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should note that I do not disagree with Pipes' characterization of the SSNP as essentially National Socialist in character, inspired in large part by the NSDAP; I'm merely suggesting people be aware that a man so transparently filled with hatred for the SSNP, the Syrian government, Palestinian nationalism, Hezbollah, etc., etc., etc., should be used as a source on such topics only with caution. Its not quite the same thing as using Julius Streicher as a source on Jewish people, but it is faintly similar.  Daniel Pipes is correct in this instance, with regard to the racialist, fascist/NS character of the SSNP, however.  I'm sorry if those things aren't fashionable today, and thus that fact causes those persons sympathetic with the SSNP to experience some consternation, but that's just the way it is. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 02:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

regarding some of the citations
1 - Ya’ari, Ehud in Atlantic monthly (used 4 times). This article does not cite one reference for all its allegations. The points made in his first paragraph are repeated in Micheal Johnson's (All Honourable Men - page 150). So probably can use Michael Johnson rather than this article if people really think they need to add more sources.

3- Rolland, John C... this guy uses Ehud Ya'ari article in the Altantic (ref. 1) as the source of his claim for the swastika being linked to hitler's nazi party: see http://books.google.com/books?id=-JVOKeNkllgC&pg=PA192&vq=ssnp&source=gbs_search_r&cad=1_1 bottom of page reference number 9.


 * about 3, yeah, the data on that book appears to be based only on the Atlantic Monthly article. I'm removing it as redundant. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * about 1, the article was written by Ehud Yaari, who seems to be a knowledgeable source on the subject.


 * about several sources per fact: if you put only one source per every controversial fact, then people will say that it was said only by that source and will attempt to attribute to only one of the sources or to "a few scholars" --Enric Naval (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The Racial theories of Antoun Saadee
I found this link. it is very interesting.

The Racial theories of Antoun Saadee

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.lebanon/browse_thread/thread/921a7bfbb5fbf68d/7bc91510d2b05598?lnk=gst&q=the+racial+theories+of+antoun+saadee&rnum=2&hl=en#7bc91510d2b05598

Although the SSNP is constantly on the defensive when accused of having incorporated Nazi and racial elements into the body of its ideology, I want you to compare and contrast the following passages from the Nazi Bible with those of Antoun Saadee's.

. "Mein Kampf " by Adolf Hitler, page 286.

"if Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.

History furnishes us with innumerable instances that prove this law. It shows, with a startling clarity, that whenever Aryans have mingled their blood with that of an inferior race the result has been the downfall of the people who were the standard- bearers of a higher culture. In North America, where the population is prevalently Teutonic, and where those elements intermingled with the inferior race only to a very small degree, we have a quality of mankind and a civilization which are different from those of Central and South America. In these latter countries the immigrants Ã¢â???¬â€œ who mainly belonged to the Latin races Ã¢â???¬â€œ mated with the aborigines, sometimes to a very large extent indeed. In this case we have a clear and decisive example of the effect produced by the mixture of races. But in North America the Teutonic element, which has kept its racial stock pure and did not mix it with any other racial stock, has come to dominate the American Continent and will remain master of it as long as that element does not fall a victim to the habit of adulterating its blood.

In short, the results of miscegenation are always the following:

(a) The level of the superior race becomes lowered;

(b) physical and mental degeneration sets in, thus leading slowly but steadily towards a progressive drying up of the vital sap. "..

From Saadee's "Ten Lectures" we read that "the Syrians in the case of the Canaanites who colonized Africa considered Negroes and Libyans to be lesser breeds." Carthage fell at a later stage, we are told, at the hands of the "Romans, a superior race at par with that of the Canaanite Syrians."

Further, we see "the Arabs allowing under Islamic Sharia, copulation with all races and peoples ......in Africa which did not result in any real civilization, unlike that of Carthage of the Syrian Canaanites, because the granting of equal rights to all peoples made the Arabs lose some of their racial ingredients and vitality which were gained by the Africans, but between the lifting of the African racial mix and the lowering of the Arabs', a middle mix was created that was closer to the lower or decadent racial mix,"- from "The Ten lectures" pp-71-72.

Hitler advocated and saw in the Aryans but one superior Race. For Saadee, on the other hand, The Syrians were a "mixture of races." However, the end result, as we saw in the above passages, was the same. The Syrian is compared, and is at par, with the European, Italian, Roman or peoples that are on a higher civilisational plane. But The Syrian according to Saadee is "superior to the Arab, the Afghan, the Indian."

While Saadee rejected Nazism in theory, he ended up accepting it in practice (see "The SSNP, An ideological analysis" by Labib Zuwiya Yamak, 1966).

These rather racist and embarrassing passages from the Zaim confuse SSNP partisans and an attempt to refute was made by a new breed of SSNP intellectuals, especially amongst those that settled in Australia and attended Melbourne University. A recent analysis came from Adel Bicharra, "Syrian Nationalism; An inquiry into the political philosophy of Antun Saadee" (unpub.M.A Prelim. Diss. Melbourne University, 1987) Quote "On the contrary, Sa'adeh regarded racial fusion as one of the driving forces of human history. Although he distinguishes between higher and lower civilizations he never lost sight of the common sense approach of the race relations......Higher civilization was thus seen as the product not of racial purity, as the nationalist socialists would have us believe, but of the group's ongoing interracial mixture, and vice versa in relation to lower civilizations."

One can easily see a certain desperation on the part of this zawba3je becharra trying to defend his master. He fails to explain why this "Syrian mix" would get degraded, if it were to fuse with "lower or inferior races-whatever that means." Saadee's racism has nothing to do with the far superior ecosystem of the fertile crescent but is rather a pure Nazi biological racial theory and a direct borrowing from Hitler.

Perhaps the SSNP should tell us if "their Syrians are far superior" to say someone like the secretary general of the UN, Mr. Koffee Anan, a negro from Ghana with a PHD from Harvard who is married a swede. Maybe their children have lower racial mix than the scandinavian blood of their mother? Or maybe they should check out another negro like nelson Mendella or an Indian like Ghandi?

The SSNP is still stuck with its Nazi past and has yet to evolve. No book or cosmetics will help it here.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by PIERRE4 (talk • contribs).

The answer to your above question would be found in Saadeh's "The Genesis of Nations", page 60, in which Saadeh states:

"There is plenty of evidence to prove the invalidity of the contention that any race with advanced mental talents is superior to any other. If we consider the individual aspect and study the lineage of a number of geniuses, we find that the purity of race is of no importance.  The illustrious poet Alexander Pushkin, who excelled in nationalist Russian literature, had black blood.  Peter the Great had a black general who, through his intelligence, rose to the rank of general engineer of artillery, acquired much property and married a Russian lady of noble rank.  The grandson of this black man was Alexander Pushkin, the greatest Russian poet.  The two famous French writers Dumas, father and son, also had black blood."

Was that also borrowed from Hitler? It seems quite contradictory to Nazi ideology.

Saadeh goes on to state:

"The theory that racial purity is essential for mental superiority, the establishment of civilizations and continued progress has become very weak indeed, if not entirely invalid, in the face of modren scientific knowledge, particularly with respect to early civilizations. The Babylonian civilization, which is regarded by scientists, or most of them, as the first to influence the general trend of civilization towards advancement, was not the work of a single race or pure-blooded people, as was thought earlier, but was the result of contact and intermingling between Sumerians and Semites."

Syrian77 (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Syrian77

Scholarly references for Fascist and Nazi influences
I added the following scholarly references describing the SSNP's for Fascist and Nazi influences, but these were deleted without comment. Please comment here in the inclusion of these facts. Histopher Critchens (talk) 11:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * These references, facts (and the image of the flag!) were again deleted without comment. This appears to be vandalism. Constructive edits are welcome, but I'll put this page on vandalism notice if warranted. Histopher Critchens (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

A few pseudo-scholars notorious for their polemic rationale, such as Daniel Pipes, saying that the staunchly anti-Israeli SSNP is modeled after the Nazi Party is expected from these people and it does not make it a fact or a widely-held opinion. Including these obviously polemic sources with the phrase "some scholars" is more than enough. 94.187.71.46 (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC) This is a broad spectrum of thoroughly vetted WP:RS reliable sources published by Oxford, Harvard, The Atlantic etc., that meet all the standards of WP:VER verifiable facts. One author, Harvard published Labib Yamak, is a former SSNP member, and documents this history. There is no basis whatsoever of these charges of bias from a couple of Wikipedia editors, who seem more likely to cry "bias" for facts they don't like. Histopher Critchens (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Those sure are some biased authors, and I wouldn't think it would be too hard to get an explanation from the horse's mouth, how did the party itself explain their symbol? If we could get some sources for that, we could clear it up. I've read that the symbol is "ancient", and if that's the case, these Nazi allegations should be left out. FunkMonk (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the party, the symbol, a cyclone, is a combination of the crescent and the cross. That rules out the Nazi theory, regardless of what you or Daniel Pipes say. 94.187.71.46 (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The party itself can hardly be said to be unbiased, but their version should be included for neutrality, as I've done. The AWB denies that their version of the Nazi Swastika flag is a swastika either, but that doesn't make it true. Histopher Critchens (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC) "Despite the strong resemblance to the swastika and the historic admiration for Nazism among the far right in South Africa, Terre'Blanche publicly claims to distance the AWB from this interpretation of the emblem. He claims instead that the sevens, 'the number of JAHWEH', 'stand to oppose the number 666, the number of the anti-Christ'. Red is considered to represent Jesus' blood, while black stands for bravery and courage. The inner white circle symbolizes the 'eternal struggle'."

Because these cited references are being systematically purged, which removes an important aspect of neutrality from the article, I've put the article on the NPOV Notice Board. Histopher Critchens (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Histopher Critchens is using reliable sources to support a point that is uncontroversial in the historical community outside of Syria, i.e., that the Syrian Social Nationalist Party was a facist movement modeled, to a significant degree, on German National Socialism.  In the 1930's, facism was popular.  Many countries, including England (British Union of Fascists, had such parties.  The repeated reversions of Histopher Critchens edits are sadly typical of the reaction of too many Wikipedia editors to material that, in their eyes, reflects badly oon a nation they love or support. Aggressive editing by enthusiastic nationalists unable to bear the reality that all nations have a chequered past is one of the great flaws of Wikipedia.Historicist (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The only issue here is, are these significant views from notable sources. Are there any arguments that they aren't? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'll add one more standard reference. Histopher Critchens (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

As you can see above, I remarked nearly two years on the tendency of some people to remove this material.

Re: a few things that have been recently remarked: - Jmabel | Talk 22:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The swastika itself is "ancient". But it was not anciently a political symbol. At the very least, anyone using a similar symbol at any date after roughly 1930 almost certainly had to be aware of the connotations of their choice.
 * It is unsurprising that any party today would wish to keep its distance from past Nazi/Fascist or eugenicist/racist sympathies and that such history would be mentioned more by those writers who are at least somewhat hostile to the party. Similarly, the U.S. Democratic Party today never speaks of its historic role in defending slavery and later Jim Crow, but it is part of the party's history (and I speak as a former precinct committee officer for that party).
 * It might be useful to follow up from some of the sources mentioned above (all secondary or tertiary) to more primary documents. I have no idea whether those documents would be available in English. But unless I am very mistaken, the cited sources are essentially correct about fascist inspiration. That doesn't mean that the party today is a fascist party, but we should not cover over its history.
 * For the record, the reason why SSNPs supposed fascist history is digged up now is because it is anti-American and pro-Syrian. The Kataeb party, the Lebanese Phalangists, have even more obvious fascist history and ideology, but this is quietly ignored, since the party is pro-American today. I'd like to see Christopher Hitchens call them Nazis too, the silly bastard. FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the adjective at the end of your comment, surely we editors can communicate to each other without adding at the end those adjectives about each other :) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Re-added. In case you didn't notice, though it should be obvious from the spelling of the name, I was referring to the journalist, not the editor. FunkMonk (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, I didn't know that journalist, and I hadn't noticed the spelling difference. You're right, sorry about that, I stroke out my comment. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

FunMonk: it does not matter what ChristopherHitchens motives are. What mattrers is only: are these significant views reported in reliable sources? If so, they go in, period. You have argued that because articles on other parties are inaccurate, this article should be inaccuirate as well, which is frankly a very silly argument. Or you are arguing about his motives, which as I said are irrelevant. You write, "The Kataeb party, the Lebanese Phalangists, have even more obvious fascist history and ideology, but this is quietly ignored, since the party is pro-American today" &mdash; frankly, I think that is bullshit. The reason those articles are ignored, or their fascist histories are ignores, is the same reason why most Wikipedia articles suck: we do not have a diverse set of editors willing to do serious library research on diverse topics. Trust me, articles on Star Wars characters are not well-developed because of some "pro-American bias." Most people who are active at WIkipedia know that (1) if the theme is information technology or (2) science fiction/anime/role playing games and (3) information is readily available already on the web, there will be well-developed Wikipedia articles. Please open your eyes as to how things work here. Now, is the Phalangist party in Lebanon a computer language or role-playing game with lots of information about its history on some web-site? No? And youa re surprised it is underdeveloped? Look, for whatever reason some editor has decided to do some research and improve, at least partially, this article. Bravo. You think that other articles need improvement? Stop bitching here, and go to those articles, and do library-based research, to find significant views in notable sources, and improve them!! That is the solution to your complaint. Isn't it obvious to you? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, by looking at the history and talk page of the Kataeb party, I can see that it has been stripped from references to Fascism by biased editors. It's not simply because it never was there in the first place. Anyway, I added some of it back, and I have not proposed anywhere on this page that info should be removed from here if it was well sourced. The problem is that people like Daniel Pipes are unreliably biased when it comes to issues like this, to say the least. So we should not take it as fact when an author simply claims something, and we should take the party's own explanation into cosideration as well. And yes, it is extremely clear why an editor called "Histopher Critchens" suddenly shows up on this page to add stuff about fascism, again, look at this recent article: I'm not saying that his edits aren't justified as a result, just saying it is pure propaganda. And please be civil and add something specific, instead of showing up here just to bitch about me "bitching". (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)talk
 * First, concerning the Kataeb party - it is unfortunate but true that at WIkipedia good content is being stripped from articles all the time. This can happen for all sorts of reasons.  I would never deny systemic bias at WIkipedia.  Unfortunately, if You want the article on the kataeb party to remain good, you need to become a committed Wikipedian and add the article to your watchlist and keep an eye on it because periodically some people will vandalize it, or add crap, or delete good content.  Thousands of editors watch the articles on Star Wars characters and make sure that good content that is deleted is promptly restored.  it is easy to do - if someone is watching to do it.  Unfortunately, if there is not a dedicated group of knowledgable and thoughtful people watching an article and constantly maintaining it, most Wikipedia articles will degrade over time.. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Histopher Critchens is partisan. FunkMonk is partisan.  However,  User:Histopher Critchens and  Daniel Pipes have facts on their side.Historicist (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It does not matter how partisan an editor is. WP:NPOV is designed with the assumption that all wikipedia editors are highly partisan.  Moreover, "facts" do not really matter - because partisan people disagree as to the facts.  Wikipedia is about "Verifiability, not truth".  Memorize NPOV and V and you will do well at Wikipedia.  Almost everything else is irrelevant (excpet NOR). Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec)Second, concerning Daniel Pipes, it really sounds like you do not understand Wikipedia policy. WP:NPOV. "biased" is NEVER a reason for excluding a view.  In fact, NPOV regularly demands that we ad the most biased views to articles.  Why?  I repeat: the standard for inclusion is a significant view from a notable source.  Sources should also be "verifiable" and "reliable" does not not not mean "unbiased," please look at WP:RS to see what we mean by "reliable."  But the threshold for inclusion is: is the source notable and is the view significant.  If the answer to either of these questions is no, then Pipes is out.  But if the answer to both is yes, Pipes could be the most ridiculously biased source in the world and we would STILL have to include him!!! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, include him, but he should not "trump" sources that claim otherwise. FunkMonk (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the small issue that Daniel Pipes regularly makes false accusations and invents things make his testimony unreliable? If the claims are true, then, no doubt, Hitchens and so on will have no trouble finding sources that aren't based on each other and are not coming from either Israeli or Lebanese Separatist sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.78.91 (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Not "truth" but verifiability - do you have significant people in notable sources saying this about him? If so perhaps it should go in - but it has to be in a notable verifiable source! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that none of these claims have been verified, but you are possibly accepting them only because they were said by well-known people. Daniel Pipes cannot verify his claim that the Red Cyclone of the SSNP was derived from the nazi swastika because there is simply no evidence suggesting that it was, other than the assertion that there is a resemblance between the two.  To understand the origins of the Cyclone as a party symbol for the SSNP one must be well-versed in SSNP history.  Daniel Pipes, and others listed above, simply are not.  They make these claims because the SSNP is staunchly opposed to the inception of a Jewish state on what it considers Syrian land.  The fact is that the cyclone was adopted as the party symbol in a distinct process that was completely independent of any outside influence, whether nazi or other.


 * Syrian77 (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Syrian77

Erroneous "Nazi" claims
These claims make no sense as the SSNP was founded in 1932. Please use causality and logic (or at least claim that the SSNP looked to Mussolini and Ataturk, both far more supportable with actual documentation) 72.152.78.91 (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In 1932 Hitler's National Socialists were the second largest party in the bundestag, widely discussed and admired. Please attempt to read some history before editingHistoricist (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know what this is about. Someone contacted me on my talk page about this argument, but I don't understand a thing about it. Nazis? Syrians? Swatstickas? I just don't know what's going on.


 * That said, how can I be of help? -Stevertigo 20:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * See, some Arab nationalist parties back in 1932 (1933?) based their foundations in Nazi Germany (because fascism was notorious and famous at that time, and it promissed nationalistic stuff that sounded very good to many people, and nobody knew what would happen later). Now we have several editors saying that this is not true and removing the nazi inspiration wholesome from the article together with its sources. This is countered by adding more and better sources, so now we have a sentence with nine different references. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * For what its worth, I am personally acquainted with a gentleman who resides in Damascus, and is a very proud member of the SSNP, and he is quite adamant about its essentially being "the Syrian Nazi Party." He is quite fascistic and anti-Semitic in his outlook, which is precisely why he chose to join the SSNP. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds interesting, but why would anyone want to revive or reanimate the most evil, dead, and destroyed ideology in all of human history? Is it the formal wear? -Stevertigo 11:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Obviously it's because of the Nazi uniforms. Fashionable as heck, some were manufactured by Hugo Boss I kid you not, some people think that dressing as a Nazi is cool and fashionable and Star Wars officers' uniforms were modelled after them. What else can you ask for? XD Sorry, I couldn't resist posting this off-topic joke. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who this person is that you claim to know, but they cannot possibly be SSNP members. The SSNP has historically expelled people who have deviated from its paradigmatic thought by adopting other ideologies, including Nazism, Socialism, Marxism, etc.

Syrian77 (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Syrian77

I added a short account by historian Payne of how European fascism influenced Arab nationalism at that time --Enric Naval (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete this entire page from wikipedia!
The entire entry on "SSNP" is totally insane and mixes truth with nonsense and filth. Why not let a member of the SSNP themselves compose the entry on SSNP? I don't understand why someone critical/hateful of SSNP would be the one charged with that responsibility? And how come every author on earth is quoted on what the SSNP stands for, except the actual founder of the party? Why not quote Saadeh himself to prove your pseudo claims of facism and swastika? Can you find a single reference from Saadeh's books? Just because someone wrote a book on the SSNP doesn't mean their opinions should be quoted as a reference to truth! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.228.87 (talk) 01:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the texts of Saadeh are primary sources, and wikipedia uses WP:SECONDARY sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

greater syria


Can you please explain here what is wrong with this map? Please be brief and point at concrete problems, so it can fixed. It would be very helpful if you could point to some map somewhere. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we need to first answer the following question: Is this map supposed to be Saadeh's Greater Syria as proposed over a map of the Middle East in the late 1910s, 1920s, or 1930s? The map's non-Syrian borders are either false (Arabian peninsula, Iran) or anachronistic (Turkey's borders look like something similar to what Anatolia was post-WWI and pre-1925).  --Nakhoda84 (talk) 03:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Busterof666 has added a different map. Is that one more correct? Can someone indentify in what year it was made and add the details to the caption? --Enric Naval (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a year would be good. This map serves the purposes of this article better. However, if this is the territory that Antun Saadeh envisioned as "Greater Syria", it may be useful to point out that it encompasses parts of northern Saudi Arabia (Tabuk, Al Jawf, Northern Border) and southern Iran (Khuzestan and Bushehr) in the text of the article. I was not aware, his concept of Greater Syria included these areas. --Nakhoda84 (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a date stated as 6 November 1998. As the southern frontier follows the arch of the Arabian desert, it is the least exact. Greater Syria (talk) 03:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

One question, I just reverted someone who had changed the name from Greater Syria to Greater Lebanon. Was that edit correct? Did Saadeh ever use the "Greater Lebanon" name? --Enric Naval (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

SSNP Suddenly News: Beating of West's Most Celebrated Political Journalist, Christopher Hitchens
Many people will be turning to this page. This obscure party suddenly became newsworthy today, Feb. 27, 2009, when its thugs unknowingly beat up the man who is arguably the Anglophone world's best known print essayist. Hitchens had taken offense at one of their swastika posters on a main street in Beirut and defaced it. The account will be preserved for a long time on Arts and Letters Daily, the blog sponsored by the (American) Chronicle of Higher Education, if anyone wishes to consult it. (Aldaily.com) Profhum (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't add new sections to the top of the page, please. Zazaban (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * link to the blog post? source discussing the incident? --Enric Naval (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are two news/magazine sources: . This incident should be mentioned in the article. Peter G Werner (talk) 03:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This belongs more to Christopher Hitchens and should be cited there. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Garbage sources
Authoritative accounts of Saadeh's thought and Syrian nationalism does not contain any of these claims of alleged Nazi influence. Ridiculous sources like those by Daniel Pipes need to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.143.159.202 (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That quote in the article was a bit cherry-picked. I have expanded it and put some of the nazi accusations in more proper context in the lead, and added some stuff in the body. It needs more work. (also, by the way, thanks for actually proposing a good scholar source that can help to explain the historical context instead of simply complaining and deleting stuff) --Enric Naval (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I sent one source to the reliable sources noticeboard for outside opinions, here. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

've been reading this talk page and I was amazed by the way some people are ready to make such a violent debate about issues they seem not to know the basis of what they're talking about. I may understand that some of the contributors to this discussion do not know a world of arabic, but that is a shame when discussing the work of someone (antoun saadeh) who wrote mainly in arabic (his complete works is a 17 volume series of around 200 page each, and cover a nearly 30 years of writing) and a party whose intellectuals (at least 4 generations) have a massive production of memoires, and doctrinal discussions (to name a few concerning memoirs Abdallah koberssi, Jebran Jreij,Julia el mir-saadeh, Ibrahim yamout, Mahmoud Nehme... for doctrinal discussions Said Taki el dinne, Wassim zeineddine, Nassif Nassar, Enaam Raed, Aboud Aboud...). I think some due clarifications are to be made: 1- concerning racism and Nazi claims: a) back in 1934, when he was in french mandate jails and when the Reich was at his peak and eugenism was still in vogue in Europe and America, Saadeh wrote one of the most central books in his doctrine "The Rise of Nations", in the second chapter of the book he makes - based on a well referenced scientific anthropological findings and other writings regarding the development of national identity in Europe - a solid case against races' superiority claim (he clearly defines social interaction between different people of different origin and culture as basis to any real development in human history) and underline that linking nationalism to racism (in taking examples not only of Germany but also of France and Europe in early 18th century) is a very reactionary and dangerous position, that should be combatted in the Arab Levant a land of strong diversity. b) On the other hand it is well known - and referenced, even Pipes and Hitchens would agree so - that SSNP followers are form very different religious (of very diverse sects) and ethnic (arabs, but also kurds, armenians, greeks, turks, persians, franks...) origins. And they might be with some communist parties in the region the very few who could proclaim such a diversity, Hardly a case for racism c) concerning the alleged saadeh's anti-arabs positions. It is striking thow some get to such a conclusion, when one of the 4 core objectives of the party clearly stated in its Goal, is the cration of a pan-arab front. saadeh defended what he called "true arabism", in his view a realistic, operative version of arabism capable of mobilizing development and resistance to colonial and then Zionist threts. He attacked conventional arabism (claiming a one Nation from Mauritania to the comores ilands, and mainly based on the sole lingual link, and the arab islamic culture negating all minority cultures). That does not mean that Saadeh's position is an anti-arab cultural position but that of considering the arab golden era of the middle ages as part of a longer history going from antiquity to present days, building a certain "geographic culture" in a certain geographic territory that is in his view the Fertile Crescent. He sees his Greater Syria and his party as one of the forces in the rise of the Arab World. c) most importantly his social nationalism doctrine is contradictory to any racism or even any chauvinism - that he denounces plainly in his writings. His conception of nationalism has at its core two central founding dynamics "social interaction" and "territorial interaction". The "Moutahhad" is his elementary social and territorial unit, it is considered to be the territorial scale in which basic needs (mainly security, food, shelter and community) could be achieved via social interaction. there is different level of Moutahads incorporating linked nets of smaller Moutahds, and responding to different level of human needs ( As a exemple a village or a town quarter is an elementery Moutahad, a territorial region or a metropolis is a different level of Moutahad incorporating a network of villages or of quarters...). The "Watan" or "Patrie" is the Nation level territorial Moutahad. For Saadeh beeing part of a Moutahad is a simple choice to live in it, and committing ones future to its, regardless of racial, cultural or religious origin. Of course left by itself and ruled by reactionary exclusive cultures set on primary social bodies (clans, tribes, large families, religious groups...), such a space holding great potentials for development will turn out to be a battlefield of tribes and flags, and a backyard for colonial exploitation. That's where he think his Nahda, a Cultural and Political Renaissance is needed to bring in a more liberal modernist spirit - in opposition to the racist Toranic movement of Ataturk or the Fascist approach of Mussolini, he thought to do it not by deneing the multicultural status of the Levant and consider rich with heritage, and by proving in his writings, that none of these cultures are fundamentally racist and non reconcilable with modernity, but rather held by communities living a trauma of a long date geography of fear - and on the other hand provide a larger non-exclusionary community of citizens, that could transcend by hope the fears and traumas of the past. Again hardly a fascist, nazi or racist project. 2- Regarding the Map: the Map represents the Syrian "Watan" the homeland of his Nation. It is defined by the party fifth amendment it says that the homeland of the Syrian people is the Fertile Crescent and it is borders are to the west by the mediteranean sea to the south by the deserts of sinaa and the arc of the arab desert ( identifying a distinction between the Syrian desert with soil and lot of oasis and the southern deset mainly a sandy no man's land) to the east the montains of Zaghros and the Bakhtiari and to the north the Tauraus chains, with cyprus as an offshore continuity to cilicia and alexandrette. Two important notes are to be made: a) this map represents the spatial manifestation of saadeh's social nationalism doctrine. first saadeh believes that Nations are a very long historical built and not a hasty product of a conjuncture (though states are), in applying his Moutahad conceptual framework, he gets to a point that on the long history of the region cultural identities were not a clear cut to any interaction, so the Nation was build on a long standing history of a network of Moutahads' social interaction on different level the Fertile Crescent level being the highest one. This interaction could only be stopped by the relative absence or instability (nomads) of the people to interact with, this is caused by far reaching deserts, seas and large inhabitable mountains - those he identified - and that on a long history of time. Political borders are by no way barriers to social interaction: anyone living on the actual Lebanese-Syrian border or the Syrian-Iraqi border knows that! b) these borders are only nominative - the fact is no known map is find in the parity's archive going back to saadeh's years- the border in saadeh's concept is not a clear line ( a "front" in the french geographic tradition) but rather a limit zone were the interaction was getting to very low levels. The Syrian "Watan" is not an essentialist conception - as say the french patrie limited by fronts, or the german homeland of the reich - but rather a socio-territorial construction, which can evolve and even be debated (saadeh himself changed it himself several times, much known when it passed from being only covering Bilad-el Cham to include Iraq and Cyprus, but the change is claimed to be the fruit of scientific geographic findings, forcing him to reconsider his construction) 3- Regarding the Flag: Far from being a Nazi Swastika, the "Zawba3a" has a defferent history. As stated in his memoir's first volume, Jebran Jreij one of the party's oldest leaders, he says that Saadeh asked SSNP militants at the architecture department of the American University of Beirut, to draw a flag for the party in 1933, they came with two proposals. Both claiming the Zawba3a as central in their design. And far from the rethoric of the cross and the crescent - that was later emphasized by some militants - it symbolized a red revolutionary movement that is rizing to bring lght in the darkness of the nation's situation. The interesting part being that one of the designs brought a zawba3a with 4 angles (as we know it), the other was with 3 angles. It was only after a debate, when the 4 were said to symbolize the high values of the party ( first of all liberty), that this design was preffered... If for a reason or the other Saadeh would have settled for a 3 angle Zawba3a would critics about Nazism and Swastika be maintained... I doubt it. I only made this intervention to shed some light on these important points, and to ask the people administrating the site not to make a hasty judgement before reading carefully about the subject they're talking about... even if it is in arabicSft78 (talk) 11:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This whole page needs to be edited
Anyone looking to educate themselves on this party and Antun Saadah should NOT use this wikipedia page as reference. Please go to credible sources and go read actual history books to formulate your own opinion. Here you will simply find information that is not true, sources that are not credible, and a sad disorganization of truths mixed with obvious falsitudes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.139.10 (talk) 08:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Five pillars
Dear IP(s) 94.65.113.54, 94.65.89.131, etc.

Sorry, but it is absolutely against all basic principles of the Wikipedia to include a huge text that is obviously the self-presentation of the party, or the founder's manifesto.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the website of a party, where it can present itself.

Wikipedia is written by a Neutral point of view, not by the POV of the article's subject, i.e. SSNP.

Wikipedia has to respect Copyrights. As this text is obviously not written by yourself, and you do not give a source, I see the probability of a violation of copyright.

Moreover, it is not acceptable to just revert a reasonable edit without discussing beforehand.

As you apparently have a great interest and knowledge in the SSNP, I would suggest you to write a short account of the origin and history of this pamphlet and a very, very short summary of those basic and reform principles and verify them with reliable sources. On the other hand, I see that it could be difficult for you to write from a neutral point of view, if you were an adherent or sympathizer of this party.

I invite you to proceed on the basis of the essential policies of Wikipedia and with respect to other Wikipedians and their possibly not entirely unjustified positions.

Kind regards, RJFF (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This source added by User:MitsosGreece shows that the whole text is by Dr. Haytham A. Kader and published on the SSNP website. Thus it is most likely their copyright and impossible to be included here. Additionally it is evidentially non-NPOV. Again: You cannot let a political party write the Wikipedia article about themselves! There can be one sentence about the self-perception of SSNP's ideology or the base of its doctrine, but it has to be critically scrutinised from a NPOV!


 * Regards -- RJFF (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The ideology has to be classified from a Neutral point of view (NPOV). The self-positioning on the SSNP website is not NPOV. I think the articles from The Guardian and the International Journal of Middle East Studies are quite reliable. Thus, the "far-right" label is verifiable. If you object, please discuss this here, and do not simply revert. Next, I believe it is not relevant for an encyclopedia to list every community where the party has support. Also, it is not sourced. If there are one, two, or three communities that can be called "strongholds" and you can prove this by reliable sources, feel free to include it. -- RJFF (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Claims by the leader of not being "fascist" is not good enough. The Falange under Primo de Rivera denied it was fascist, but its policies under him are widely viewed as fascist.
First of all the example I mentioned in the subject heading: Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera of the Falange claimed "The movement we are creating in Spain is not a copy of any foreign movement" and both denied it was fascist while respecting fascism as similar to its goals. But the Falange under his leadership (but not under Francisco Franco's authoritarian conservative leadership) was widely regarded as fascist. The Nazis also never claimed that they were officially fascist, but they are widely regarded as such. Usually the leaders of fascist movements - being nationalist as they are, deny that they are copies of foreign ideologies and claim that their ideologies are rooted in national culture and tradition. The SSNP's position sounds no different. The World Encyclopedia of Fascism by scholar Cyprian Blamires states that the SSNP is fascist, see here:. Here is another source that states that the SSNP assumed a "Fascist character",. Here is another source that notes its "fascist qualities, . Lastly, there is Stanley Payne who claims that while the SSNP was not a fully developed fascist movement with the full characteristics of European fascism, it is connected with fascist politics and says that Saadeh effective charismatic leader of Middle Eastern fascistic movements . And lastly, this source notes the SSNP being associated with fascism and Nazism, noting it's commitment to totalitarianism, held corporatist views of the state like fascists, racial anti-Semitism similar to the Nazis, and that Saadeh used a term similar to "Fuhrer" to describe his "leader for life" position. and uber Alles Among these references it is not only stated of the SSNP's and Saadeh's connections with fascism, but notes its fascist qualities: a belief in the racial superiority of Syrians, a personality cult around Saadeh. Bear in mind that I am including only the ones made by the most neutral scholarly sources on Google Books and have excluded sources on Google Books that included contemporary Islamophobic and Arab-phobic themes in their titles or chapters that make similar claims but are xenophobically prejudiced to make claims about Islam or Arab society being associated with fascism. By excluding these and including only sources that appear scholarly and neutral I think these this makes a persuasive argument that the SSNP is indeed closely related to fascism.--R-41 (talk) 12:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Is not centre-left
The SSNP is not centre-left, the position of the party is far-right --Danrolo 23:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Third Position?
How about Third Position? It would fit the far-right social themes and leftist economic themes. 108.49.30.17 (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * However, it is not verifiable with reliable sources. Wikipedia does not accept original research of its users. --RJFF (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Reeva S. - Simon or Johnson?
Reeva S. appears as "Johnson" in the article, and "Simon" in the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.126.205 (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Conventional short name in Arabic?
What is official conventional short name for the party in the Arabian language? I mean something like Fatah or Daesh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.219.84 (talk) 05:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Current allegiance
Is the party still part of the National Progressive Front or has it joined the opposition? Phil.Phil070707 (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * They were part of the National Progressive Front, but they left to join the Popular Front for Change and Liberation, a pseudo-opposition electoral alliance consisting of the SSNP and the People's Will Party. They have since left the Popular Front as well. In reality, the SSNP is not a real opposition party. It merely plays the part to give veneer of legitimacy to the Syrian regime. It is for all intents and purposes a pro-Assad party. Charles Essie (talk) 11:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, you have no problem presenting you opinions as facts; "in reality" "it merely plays the part" "it is for all intents and purposes" sound like you know "the truth." It is best to stick with that which can be backed by reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * SSNP militias are fighting for the government side. That should be a pretty big hint. FunkMonk (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is their current alliance - within a history that is more that 5 times as old as the regime of Bashar al Assad. It should not be presented as merely an Assad militia, it's history is too long for such an oversimplification, and it's ideology too narrow to be a labeled as simply a pro-Assad party as their ideologies are extremely different. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No one implied otherwise, and yes, I could even imagine them partially taking over government areas if Assad is ever toppled. But for now, they are pretty much a pro-Syrian government party, also in Lebanon. FunkMonk (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no disagreement with that characterization, that is what the RS say... Thank you FunkMonk. Ism schism (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Inaccuracies about Zionism

The most blatant one is the claim that interwar Jewish immigrant to Palestine were from the Soviet Union. In fact emigration from the USSR was difficult at the time, and most olim were from Poland and Romania, and later from Germany and Austria. The immigrants from Russia came before the October revolution for the most part.

The other is the somewhat confused claim about the relationship of olim to the existing Jewish community. For one thing, by 1920 a large part of the Jewish population of Palestine, in fact I think the majority, were themselves Zionist olim who had arrived between 1880 and 1920, not members of the "old yishuv" (the pre Zionist Jewish community) Second, despite the claim of lack of affinity in fact some members of the old Yishuv did come to support Zionism. If the reference is to lack of cultural and ethnic affinity, it should be noted that some olim came from the middle east themselves, not all were ashkenazim.

Ricardianman (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Role in Syrian Civil War
This organization keeps showing up in Al Masdar news releases about battles in Latakia and other places (e.g. ). They were involved in the recent battle of Salma, for example. Maybe something about their military wing should be mentioned in the article? Esn (talk) 12:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Iranian city - Ahvaz
It is part of Wikipedia’s policy Official names, Naming conventions, Correct, Verifiability, not truth to accurately represent facts - historical or otherwise. The name of the city referred to in Iran is Ahvaz - not Al Ahwaz. Please refrain from making inaccurate statements. If it is determined that a user is purposely making misleading and politically, or historically bias statements, appropriate sanctions will apply Editing policy, General sanctions Banning policy. Please ensure that your edits are inline with Policies and guidelines, Etiquette and Neutral point of view in-order to avoid an unpleasant outcome. Any name change must be discussed in advance Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. If no consensus is reached, the issue will be settled through Dispute resolution. As a few helpful tips, I recommend reading the following: WikiProject Council/Guide, Core content policies.

All the best NuturalObserver (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Ideology: Infobox
I am creating this section because this area of the article is edited so often. -- 94.174.73.195 (talk) 05:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC) Central to the SSNP program is the idea of National Revival (النهضة القومية). The secularism and irredenism contained the the party's articles follow from this idea. The Syrian people are a single indivisible nation. I removed unreferenced "populism" which is meaningless in the regional context. Nonsense as well, as the SSNP is an old, pro-Assad (both) and "establishment" force. I was only able to trace one of the two Fascism sources added by @95.238.243.241 and it was an accusation. -- 94.174.73.195 (talk) 05:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Syrian Social Nationalist Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140508030837/http://sana.sy/eng/21/2014/05/06/542876.htm to http://sana.sy/eng/21/2014/05/06/542876.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://home.iprimus.com.au/fidamelhem/ssnp/The+lebanese_crisis_of_1958_and_the+the+SSNp.htm
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120714144039/http://ssnp.net/content/view/378/100 to http://ssnp.net/content/view/378/100
 * Added tag to http://past.thenation.com/doc/20050103/irwin

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Syrian Social Nationalist Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070206014522/http://www.cedarland.org/teams.html to http://www.cedarland.org/teams.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051219034355/http://www.tahawolat.com/ to http://www.tahawolat.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Fascism?
Copied from User talk:Jmabel
 * i found the reference cited in the ssnp article at the following address


 * http://past.thenation.com/doc/20050103/irwin


 * and it does not state "and its ideology drew heavily on the European fascists of the period, especially Benito Mussolini. "


 * it is an article about a Syrian poet (adonis) and the only refernce to fascism in it is "The charismatic Sa'ada put forward quasi-fascistic arguments for the future destiny of a Greater Syria "


 * ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objktv (talk • contribs) 25 Aug 2005


 * My sincere apologies. I didn't have the article in front of me, and that's where I thought this came from. I'll try to do some research and back it up with a citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:56, August 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think we are best off leaving this out unless someone wants to do some legwork. 45 minutes or so of web searching finds quite a few blogs suggesting that Saadeh's politics were more or less fascist, but not much from anything like a solid source. I did turn up a rather interesting New York Times article "'Pink Communism' in the Middle East; Though doctrinaire Marxism is negligible, Arab nationalism and an urge for rapid social betterment serve Russian aims in a troubled area" by Elizabeth Monroe (of The Economist), Jun 7, 1953. p. SM9 (6 pages). The article is rather condescending to Arabs, but nonetheless has an interesting thesis that the "Communism" of the time in Arab countries was more of a veneer for politics more resembling fascism or national socialism. Its one reference to Saadeh is in this context: "The right label for the doctrine he [the Arab of the time] is absorbing is not Communist; it is national socialist or&mdash;or as the Greater Syria shirt movement of the late Antun Saadeh prefers to call it&mdash;"social nationalist, which is less prone to misunderstanding." (p.26) -- Jmabel | Talk 05:44, August 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that thesis is somewhat politically driven. Certainly, there were a couple of different strands of Arab political opinion at the time presenting themselves as broadly socialist or progressive. Communists were (contrary to that writer) a significant element in Iraq at that time, and by no means negligible in Syria. More important (except in Iraq) were movements considering themselves "Arab socialists" such as the Baath, Akram al-Hurani's Arab Socialist Party in Syria, and, soon afterwards, Nasserism. The Baath party founders were clearly influenced by, though by no means fully accepting of, Marxism, and the Baath party in later years, cf the 1963 Sixth Party Congress and the 'shubatiyyin' government in Syria, were heavily "Marxisant". Saadeh, I think it's fair to say, was influenced by fascism, but he was relatively unusual in that among the Arab socialist organisations. The other organisations should perhaps be better compared with socialist but non-communist organisations in other ex-colonial countries, such as Latin America and Africa. These generally had a nationalistic leaning, and in some cases resorted to statism as much as a necessary means of economic development as for Marxist-inspired ideological reasons. They also, in many cases, ended up in the Soviet camp (Cuba and Nicaragua being cases in point), while others remained non-aligned (e.g. Tanzania). But to point to the use of the term "socialist" in conjunction with nationalist tendencies and draw a paralell with fascist regimes in Europe is quite inaccurate, I would think. Palmiro | Talk 17:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * There's a number of sources I've added to the piece, all of which go into detail mentioning the party's fascist origins, such as Pipe's "Greater Syria: The History of an Ambition" and Ya'ari's article "Behind The Terror" in the Atlantic, as well as Reeva's "Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East" which links the party's founder to Sa'ada's involvement with more traditional European fascist movements. Antiallesaktion (talk) 02:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Various sources describe the party as far-right in the beginning, but this party is old and naturally changes like every other party! Eventually they became more broadly nationalistic, and in more recent times is believed to have been moving quite a bit towards the left, becoming more of a left-wing nationalist political party! We have sources already in the article proving this! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 10:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Various sources claim the party is outright fascist or at the very least heavily based on European fascist movements of the time. The general consensus remains that the party is a fascist one, at least as far as the talk page and the published literature is concerned. If the party has slightly changed position in recent years that's certainly relevant and may require a new section, but it doesn't fundamentally alter the party's founding or core ideologies or symbolism as being based on fascism, as listed in a range of journal articles and books on the subject. Regardless, I've corrected the references, added several more, and included the relevant quotes from these references which list the party as being either overtly fascist or highly influenced by European fascist movements, in the songs they use, the symbology they use, the official party dress used, and the ideology the party adheres to. Antiallesaktion (talk) 12:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * This types of problem keeps popping up on articles on political parties. I think we have to separate between what term we use in the infobox and how we discuss the origins of the party in the main text. For the infobox, adding "fascism" is highly misleading. SSNP isn't by any means a fascist party in an ideological sense, it is an entity shaped more by realpolitik than doctrine. "Left-wing nationalism", or any notion that SSNP would be a leftist party, is equally wrong. For infoboxes on political parties the best is to pick a broad and uncontroversial label, to which a party self-identifies. In this case it would be simply 'Syrian nationalism'. In the passages on the history of the party, the initial inspiration of European fascism at the time of foundation of the party can be discussed. --Soman (talk) 12:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if a party's self-identification overrides the vast wealth of published literature that describes the party as either outright fascist or "fascistic" which details the party's ideological heritage as being based in the ideology European fascism and using European fascist symbology, uniforms, songs, and other identifiers. Would a subheading mentioning the "historical" position and basis of the party as some other other political party pages do be more appropriate? Do you have examples of other editing conflicts in which the primary sources from a party itself is vastly different from that of the most detailed secondary sources? I'll try and work the sources into the main body of the text, regardless, although there are already multiple sources in the body of the text that reference the party as being fascist, already. Antiallesaktion (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Fascism (3)
Despite there being a general consensus on the talk page here, in the archives of the talk pages on fascism of whether this should be considered a fascist movement or not, and the inclusion of this group in multiple other pages discussing far-right politics, there seems to be an ongoing effort to remove all references of this party's political position outside of primary sources from this group's page, even though the vast majority of the supporting literature tends to mention them as either being a fascist movement, or heavily based on the founder's interest in European fascism through the adoption of fascist symbology and ideology, with these sources all saying classifying the party as a "fascist" one, through the mid 1960s through to the current decade. Much of the criticism seems to rely on arguments that as the party has adopted one or two policies that are more moderate in recent years it therefore should be removed from the categorisation, although this is has not been supported by any references, journal articles, or any other source. I'm relatively new to editing Wikipedia, but given the lack of supporting evidence and the ways other similar parties are all listed along a similar line, it appears as if this party should be styled in relatively similar terms to other parties with similar ideological leanings?


 * What ideology they had early on does not define who they will be after a certain amount of time, remember how the US deocrats used to be a conservative pro-slavery party back in the day. Parties change over time, and you dont have to look far for sources proving that the SSNP has become more left-wing nationalist and an ally of other hardline leftist parties! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * As already mentioned and requested multiple times, there is more than half a century of sources pointing to this party being modeled on European fascist movements with very little outside of first party sources presenting an alternate point of view. If the party has changed positions that is relevant, but it doesn't change what the actual literature and research says on the topic.Antiallesaktion (talk) 01:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * As of now, Soman emptied other ideologies and positions out because of the lack of concensus. Remember that not just any source can be used as well, many western sources base their views of the party purely on early times, the name and party symbol without any real analyzis of party policies! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 11:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Ideological categorisation and the need for WP:RS
This is fundamentally to one user in particular, however the issue of its political categorisation is somewhat controversial. To begin with I question whether some of the sources listed meet the requirements for WP:RS. you have removed the statements from WP:RS in this | edit that arguably could be considered bordering on WP:NOR. The only source that asserts this supposed left-wing nature of SSNP is the website 'Fort Russ'; a organisation owned and funded by the Belgrade-based 'Center for Syncretic Studies'. This Center for Syncretic Studies has been described by the Center for Media and Democracy's Sourcewatch as a "a neo-fascist think tank" (source: |sourcewatch.org/index.php/Center_for_Syncretic_Studies) this source therefore does not meet the requirements of WP:RS. Alssa1 (talk) 10:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If that is so, the source might either be swapped with a cn-tag or removed. However, your source for right-wing is not a good source at all as it only really makes assumptions based on their rather old symbol, the name that has been retained since before WW2, and the oversimplified idea that nationalism=fascism/right-wing politics. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 10:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not for you to make a judgement on whether a source is "a good source at all" or not. A number of WP:RS say that the SSNP is a Fascist organisation, that ends the matter. We are editors, we go by what reliable sources say, to do anything else would constitute infringing upon WP:NOR. Alssa1 (talk) 11:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It has become readily apparent that Vif12vf will not accept any reliable sources so long as those sources do not verify their own beliefs about the SSNP. Instead, this user has chosen to refuse every reliable source on the basis that they do not conform with their POV. Fort-Russ is a neo-Nazi website, the author sourced was fired from his job after he was outed as a member of Stormfront. This behaviour is just yet another example of bad actors whitewashing far-right pages with little repercussions from the community. 67.69.69.12 (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Going to add that i already tried taking this to their talk page. They blanked the entire complaint and responded with a warning template on my own talk page. Them asking for consensus to add reliably sourced information is little more than a charade, they did not care about consensus or RS before, and do not now. 67.69.69.12 (talk) 23:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the damn sources in the position section! And stop adding your ideology until further discussion has taken place! Furthermore, never remove necessary hidden notes from the infobox in articles prone to conflict! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * YOU are the one attempting to insert their own ideological biases in the article. YOU have persistently removed reliably sourced content with the intent of adding back unreliable sources. You have repeatedly stated that YOU feel that the SSNP is left-wing. This subheader alone demonstrates that you are engaging in bad-faith, having rejected multiple RS simply because you did not like the explanation. I do not care what you have to say on the matter, take it up with staff. 67.69.69.243 (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure how I am supposed to be adding anything when I never added the Fort Russ article to begin with. Removing that source was never the issue to begin with, adding unreliable news-sources that conflict three high-quality sources in the position-section is! And no, I don't "feel" anything about the party, feelings are worthless in this space! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You have repeatedly argued to preserve the Fort-Russ citation with multiple editors throughout this page. You have also taken to issuing blatantly inappropriate warnings as retribution for pointing out obvious POV-pushing on your part. You are now shifting excuses for why the edits should not be made. I am not going to regard anything you say as constructive input, and i strongly recommend other editors follow suit. 67.69.69.243 (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Fort Russ is absolutely not an RS. There are lots of RSs we could use. Will review our current sources and add others. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have removed Glavin from the infobox as an opinion column. Bellingcat is an RS. Which other sources is there disagreement about? Irridentism and anti-Zionism are in the body but without citations; I don't think they're contentious but we need citations in the body in order to keep in infobox. Syrian nationalism and secularism don't need citations as adequately cited in the body. Left-wing seems to have adequate citations (still checking them all) but I suspect there are other RSs which would disagree. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

This edit was a massive unexplained revert of several hours worth of careful edits with sources and edit summaries and explanation on talk, made without any attempt to gain consensus on talk. If you disputed individual edit, you could have edited them one by one with edit summaries, and you should take this to talk. I would appreciate you reverting yourself and engaging constructively. Could you explain the problems with my edits? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello I apologize for my edit and have reverted. There has been much disruptive editing on this page and I was seeking to clean-up the page but completely forgot to use the edit summaries. I see that your edits were not disrupted and were well researched. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Much appreciated. I totally understand, given the history of this page. Hope I did not come across as aggressive in my comment to you! BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on june 20 2021
Revert edits by JJNito197 to last edit by Ymblanter. There has been a pedsistent attempt by users sympathetic to the SSNP to whitewash the party and distance it from its pro-Nazi past and present. This has previously included the persistent citing of an article published to Fort-Russ, a neo-Nazi website, and written by Paul Antonopoulos, a neo-Nazi and known Stormfront user. There is nothing ambiguous about the party's fascist politics, just as there isn't any ambiguity over the politics of Aleksandr Dugin despite his constant attempts to label himself "antifascist."69.158.88.78 (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm going to need a citation for the statement you made about "pro-nazi past and present". The thing is that those against SSNP are as equally zealous as those for. I'm neither. I dont care for nazis or what ever you said about stormfront. The world doesn't revolve around the west. This rhetoric is a disservice to this article and is borderline NPOV. Please also see WP:GOODFAITH.JJNito197 (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The SSNP has a long history of working with neo-Nazi political parties and organisations on an international scale. Some of its most recent and important activities in this regard have been with the Russian Imperial Movement. It is extremely difficult to assume good faith when neo-Nazi sources have been persistently restored, and editors are inserting uncited OR about how only "the west" labels the SSNP as fascist, then turning around and claiming edits demonstrating the contrary are "borderline NPOV." 67.69.69.16 (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Again, we need a citation for that. If your problem was the neo-nazi source, it has since been removed. It seems you have a close connection to this article, please mind NPOV - which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias. Regards JJNito197 (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The citation is on the Russian Imperial Movement. Moreover, numerous RS references have been listed throughout the talk page that document the SSNP's fascist politics, only to be removed without explanation. You are very blatantly pushing a POV and justifying it by claiming RS are "Western." 67.69.69.16 (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That edit was made with a list of references in front of them.67.69.69.16 (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not a reliable source and it doesn't state that SSNP is fascist/far right either. The definition of fascist is in direct opposition to what SSNP stands for— SSNP are allied with far-left communist parties for goodness sake. It doesnt help that SSNP are allied with the Syrian government in contrast to western back islamist groups either, hence peoples dissonance with "reliable" and totally-not-pushing-an-agenda citations. JJNito197 (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You are now outright dismissing entire reference lists and internal consistency within Wikipedia. You asked what sources verified the SSNP's collaboration with RIM and you have dismissed that too  It has become abundantly evident that you will not accept any source that does not verify your beliefs about the organisation. Just going to say it now, it does not look good for you when you are whitewashing Nazi pages. 69.158.88.78 (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Grow up you zealot. You have no ground to cast false aspersions on me. Learn about people and understand the plurality of opinion. See also WP:ADVOCACY. JJNito197 (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Immediately after reverting ny warning over disruptive and advocative edits, you have taken to accuse me of violating WP:ADVOCACY myself. Your dishonesty and refusal to address why these RS are invalid aside, what exactly am I advocating for by correctly documenting the SSNP as fascist? 69.158.88.78 (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Edit requests are not a form of dispute resolution. I suggest that everyone take a step back and try to work this out civilly here on the talk page. Failing that, please take it to WP:3O or WP:DRN. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 19:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If I take this anywhere, it's going to be straight to arbitration. If users are going to be advocating on behalf of a Nazi party (and going so far as to consistently break WP:NPOV and WP:RS to do so), this will be settled in full view of the community. JJNito197 literally had a reference list in front of their comment demanding references. Thus far I have been accused of unspecified "zealotry," and inserting "western" POVs by someone who is readily parroting the Assad regime's propaganda, in support of an organisation in coalition with the Assad regime.  The person derailing this request into a "dispute" is very clearly one of several WP:ADVOCATE for the Assad regime that have been vandalising this page with the intent of whitewashing the party, often with propaganda produced by the party and those associated with it, and doing so against long-established consensus. Previous users demonstrating this behaviour, like Vif12vf have already been blocked for three months for their WP:ADVOCACY, which has included restoring articles from neo-Nazi websites as citations for why the SSNP supposedly is not a fascist party, written by a neo-Nazi supporter of the SSNP fired from Al-Masdar News, a fact explained in the Bellingcat article that was persistently removed.  If you remotely care about the integrity of the Wikipedia project, you would understand that this behaviour is not remotely acceptable and does not constitute a dispute as much as a disruption. 69.158.88.78 (talk) 08:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You seem to know alot about the ins and outs outs of how wikipedia works, which is interesting because it is you that is coming across unhinged and ideologically zealous, also casting aspersions Casting aspersions, not applying Assume good faith, ranting about nazis and stormsfront like Syrians care about these things (they have more pressing issues), also (Wikipedia is not a forum), and you are clearly violating NPOV and WP:ADVOCACY through your earnest attempts at inserting 'fascist' even though this does not represent the parties stance. They fought against far right Kataeb in the coalition of leftwing forces in the lebanese civil war; and fight with communists, Kurds and the government in Syria against far right fascist jihadis and radical islamists. These facts being said, what makes SSNP fascist today? Are they facist by proxy of supporting the regime, if so, does that make communists, assyrians and kurds fighting alongside them "far right neonazi facists?". I also suggest you read some articles like this  if you are unaware of the present-day, multi-faceted situation. JJNito197 (talk) 10:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Consensus was established multiple times, but has been wiped away from the talk page immediately after User:JJNito197 started their disruptive edits. Numerous RS have also since been replaced, in many cases. Some of those citations have been JJNito197's entire basis for this "dispute" is propaganda originating from either the SSNP or its coalition partners, or do not corroborate their own claims about the party. This has included specifically changing neutral language on criticism to claiming "western scholars have superimposed" ideological and organisational inspirations of fascism. This is blatantly disruptive editing, and it's being done to whitewash a Nazi party. 69.158.88.78 (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Edit requests are for edits with no objections. There are objections so consensus must be established before an edit request will be completed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The objection is from the very user whose edits are requested to be reverted. Going to add that JJNito197 is also citing SSNP members like Adel Beshara as refutation of consensus. Their actions fits a pattern of behaviour found among POV pushers on far-right pages, such as edit-warring in favour of a POV sympathetic of article subjects, removing RS, adding unreliable RS, adding language downplaying the extremist politics of the subject, removing language critical of the subject and stonewalling against established consensus. Drmies already locked the page for this exact sort of past behaviour. 69.158.88.78 (talk) 12:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Edit requests are not for furthering an edit war, either. See WP:The Wrong Version. Please engage in a discussion, in a spirit of mutual respect and good-faith, in an attempt to find a compromise or a consensus from uninvolved editors. Additionally, accusing other editors of being far-right POV pushers is also unacceptable. If there legitimate issues with their edits in terms of policy, please go to ANI. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  19:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I strongly support the anon editor's proposal to restore this version, which is properly cited and makes sense. The subsequent edits are POV. This source is being used as a citation for "left-wing" but what the source is saying is that up to 1961 it was viewed as left-wing but moved leftwards at that point. The other source is flimsy and relates to the Lebanese party in the 1980s. I personally think "syncretic" is a better description and answers the question in this edit summary, but I think we basically need better sources. Re the Fort Russ question above, we deprecate SouthFront and consider Al-Masdar generally unreliable, and Fort Russ is closely connected to them. It's totally not a reliable source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It should not matter what the source says, because it's unreliable and tied to the party's own propaganda. The fact that the source does not reflect the assertion cited by JJNito197 only goes to show that the editor in question is pushing a POV. It is not unacceptable to call out bad faith actors, it is necessary to maintaining a healthy base of contributors for the project. There is a campaign among sympathisers of the SSNP to whitewash the party's history and beliefs, and Wikipedia is a front for that campaign, a fact that has been visible throughout this talk page's archives. 67.69.69.223 (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * BobFromBrockley, nothing that was added pushes any POV, infact it includes and reflects further detail per sources provided, and the "western" addition is used to accentuate the fact the critique and comparisons to European fascism comes overwhelmingly from that sphere, suprisingly. (This is not addressed in the article). The ideology section that was recently updated in my opinion serves little purpose but to discredit and besmirch, not provide the reader with any useful information, which makes me question why it is not under the critique sub-section instead. I admit, I do not not find left-right dichotomy to be helpful in this case, but for users to just insert fascism and far-right and not be pulled up on it I just find unacceptable. Using this source from the Carnegie Middle East Center we can insert valid ideological points as it is a trusted, independent and reliable research center. As for 67.69.69.223, "It should not matter what the source says" is an utterly absurd statement. JJNito197 (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It does not matter what unreliable sources say. When you remove reliably sourced edits and replace them with claims from party supporters, you are an advocate. You are also doing it against consensus, and against the myriad of sources that have been systemically removed by the party's supporters.69.158.88.78 (talk) 08:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Consenus was the article before you started WP:BOLD editing it (without consensus) a week ago. JJNito197 (talk) 09:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Consensus was that the SSNP is a fascist party, a fact readily observable in each section on this talk page. Now you re just being blatantly dishonest. 69.158.88.78 (talk) 10:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This article is controversial so it is not as clear cut as you are making out. Anybody with common sense knows that this is not a fascist party, so you can keep screaming fascist and equating them with Nazis at your own intellectual detriment. JJNito197 (talk)
 * Consensus is not ambiguous, and telling us that "anyone with common sense" supports your POV is not convincing, especially when you're deleting RS. You have also conspicuously failed to address any criticisms of your edits. This has consensus, is properly cited, and is only being challenged by a blatant POV-pusher.  It's going up, regardless of the complaints of SSNP-sympathetic trolls. 69.158.88.78 (talk) 12:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear what the consensus is. On the talk page, I can see one editor insisting any mention of fascism is illegitimate, blocked editor Vif12vf trying to use a really dodgy source (Fort Russ) to back this up, and myself,  and an anon editor arguing for some mention of fascism as per several reliable sources listed on the page. In the edits, it's hard to tell, but looks to me like several editors who have attempted to use reliable sources to mention fascism (e.g., ) have simply been reverted by Vif12vf. That looks like "no consensus" to me, but certainly like more editors than not think fascism should be mentioned. As for the current version, this edit removes without clear rationale a reliable source that uses the term "fascist", and this edit introduces unnecessary obscurity. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If the ideology section didn't open up as hitpiece attacking the credibility of the party I wouldn't have objected, its ideology should be explained in a coherent, neutral way for the benefit of the reader. Why didn't you move the content you added to the critique section? If this had been done instead it wouldn't have bothered me. Fascism should be mentioned but equally debunked (Mt.FijiBoiz further edits clears this ambiguity up). All my edits do is give context to the content per source, which is why a neutral/independent/third party source (see above) should be given more credence than a involved party (the west) as both sides (loyalist-opposition) are fundamentally antagonistic to each other. JJNito197 (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No, you cited Beshara, who is a supporter of the SSNP. Pretending that your edits are "neutral" is entirely dishonest, as is dismissing critical coverage of the party's fascist history and ideology as the work of "The West." 69.158.88.78 (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I don't accept that scholarly accounts such as Payne's are "critiques". We should be presenting what the scholarship says. This might take the form of "some scholars say X, while others say Y", rather than "some scholars say X but they are wrong". I'm also unclear about the idea of scholarly or news sources being non-neutral/non-independent/opposition sources simply because they are "western". Anyway, I wonder if, to move forward, what we need to do in the short term is allow more ambiguity in the infobox, e.g. note that labels are contested? And meanwhile build up the body with reliable sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I do understand where you are coming from I just think we need to have adequate representation of both sides as this will give greater understanding to the public at large. It is not a black/white issue and I am aware of multiple splinter groups that claim to be the "true SSNP", which opens up another can of worms in regards to the underlying political ideology of the party at large. Think tanks like Carnegie Middle East Centre can be helpful in pinpointing such allegencies without being overtly politicized. I'm sure you can see it is a contentious issue. Kind regards JJNito197 (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 100% agree it is constentious and that we need representation from both sides, as well as careful consideration of splinter groups. I'm sure we can get there together! BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There is not really room for "both sides" here, the side calling it a fascist party constitutes the entirety of studies on the party, whereas the side claiming it is not is comprised entirely of partisan propaganda from the SSNP. Regardless of the future of the infobox, there is a "Syrian-Lebanese" editor attempting to use the project as a SOAP. This is no different than the Klan attempting to rebrand itself.

Here are some archives of the talk page that documents more examples of complaints of POV pushers acting against consensus and policy. 69.158.88.78 (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

How on earth is the SSNP left wing?
They're a Far Right Neo-Fascist party not left wing in any way. GeorgeMemeulous (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Ideaology Fascism
Why is this on there? If its not only denied but has a link to just one opinion blog, which starts off with the SSNP funding people like Julian Assange, I fail to see how this qualifies to being put in the info box. If Fascism is understood to be a tolitarian idealogy of far right nationalism, a total control of state and installing a corporatist economic system, there's no way in my opinion it can be justified to have fascism on the ideaology section, instead of just a "it has been claimed" paragraph. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EmilePersaud 23:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this edit by addresses this well, showing this is asserted and contested. The "opinion blog" is actually a news item in a reliable source. The "Ideology" section of the article includes a good discussion of this based on academic sources, so ideally the infobox citation could be improved and one of the academic sources used instead but current version is fine. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Anti-communism
Editing is going back and forth on whether anti-communism should be listed in the infobox as the party's ideology. As stable version didn't include this, onus is on the editor wishing to include it,, to make a case, e.g. by identifying sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Merger discussion
There is a lot of overlap between this article and Syrian Social Nationalist Party in Lebanon, I would propose that the two pages be merged Geopony (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Left-wing?
I think that defining the SSNP as left-wing is totally absurd: it's a fascist and anti-Semitic party with a swastika-like symbol. It is classed as far-right in several sources.-Karma1998 (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


 * According to both Pipes and Beshara, the SSNP was largely considered to be right wing, only later on branding itself as a left wing movement 2601:403:201:4010:B525:947C:64B9:282E (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * There has been a strong consensus for the party being recognised as far-right for some time, but one specific editor (Vif12vf) seems to have a history of edit-warring and using SSNP members like Beshara as sources. Vif12vf's edits are concurrent with propaganda sympathetic of the SSNP itself and is otherwise rejected by scholars and journalists covering the subject.  Here's Jake Hanrahan, The New Arab, and The Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right describing it as a far-right organisation. The reality is that the content in question reflects an obviously cherry-picked set of sources that wouldn't fly anywhere else on Wikipedia. 69.158.88.247 (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree that it is in insane to label it left-wing in the info box. At the very least, this is highly contentious and therefore should not be straightforwardly in the info box. My suggestion would be to remove the left/right designation from the info box altogether. Otherwise, we need to find some way to say it’s been described as left-wing by some authors and right wing by others and/or actually do a more thorough review of sources rather than relying on a couple of low quality outdated ones. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Again, the issue is that there are a couple editors who keep fighting consensus, clearly to maintain a POV aligned with the party's propaganda. Vif12vf is padticularly disruptive and has been reverting efforts to bring the article in line with consensus and with modern sources. I'd go.so far as to say it's even more blatant than the actions of other users with similarly long histories of POV-pushing. 69.156.105.26 (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It is very obviously a far-right party, everyone seems to agree on this except the user ComradeJean, who is clearly a sympathizer of the party. G4r!b4ld! (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC)